ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions - PubMed (original) (raw)

Miguel A Hernán 2, Barnaby C Reeves 3, Jelena Savović 4, Nancy D Berkman 5, Meera Viswanathan 6, David Henry 7, Douglas G Altman 8, Mohammed T Ansari 9, Isabelle Boutron 10, James R Carpenter 11, An-Wen Chan 12, Rachel Churchill 13, Jonathan J Deeks 14, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson 15, Jamie Kirkham 16, Peter Jüni 17, Yoon K Loke 18, Theresa D Pigott 19, Craig R Ramsay 20, Deborah Regidor 21, Hannah R Rothstein 22, Lakhbir Sandhu 23, Pasqualina L Santaguida 24, Holger J Schünemann 25, Beverly Shea 26, Ian Shrier 27, Peter Tugwell 28, Lucy Turner 29, Jeffrey C Valentine 30, Hugh Waddington 31, Elizabeth Waters 32, George A Wells 33, Penny F Whiting 34, Julian Pt Higgins 35

Affiliations

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

Jonathan Ac Sterne et al. BMJ. 2016.

Abstract

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf and declare: grants from Cochrane, MRC, and NIHR during the conduct of the study. Dr Carpenter reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from GSK and grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr Reeves is a co-convenor of the Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None

Fig 1 Summary of the process of assessing risk of bias in a systematic review of non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-8. 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 pmid:8634569. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:544-50. 10.7326/0003-4819-99-4-544 pmid:6625387. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strom B. Overview of automated databases in pharmacoepidemiology. In: Strom BL, Hennessy S, eds. Pharmacoepidemiology. 5th ed. Wiley, 2012.
    1. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:666-76. 10.1093/ije/dym018 pmid:17470488. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173. 10.3310/hta7270 pmid:14499048. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources